What do you think?
Rate this book
איש האמונה הבודד
את המסה איש האמונה הבודד כתב הרב יוסף דב הלוי סולוביצ'יק באמצע המאה שעברה, ומאז ראתה אור בקיץ תשכ"ה (1965) כבשה לה לבבות רבים ונהפכה לחיבור מרכזי בהגות היהודית בת זמננו, חיבור שהוכר כיצירת מופת גם על ידי הוגים לא-יהודים.
במסה זו מתמודד הרב סולוביצ'יק עם המתח השורר בין האדם ההישגי והטכנולוגי לאדם העורג לא-לוהים. הוא עושה זאת דרך לימוד מעמיק של סיפור בריאת האדם, המציג שני טיפוסים: "איש ההוד", זה הרוצה לכבוש את כוחות הטבע, לנצלם לצרכיו ולשלוט בהם, ו"איש האמונה", הנקרא לוויתור ולהקרבה כדי לממש את בריתו עם האל. לדעת הרב סולוביצ'יק שני אנשים אלה, שאותם הוא מכנה אדם-א ואדם-ב, טבועים בכל אדם באשר הוא נברא ומעצבים את תודעתו.
המסה איש האמונה הבודד היטיבה לתאר, תוך כדי פרשנות יצירתית של המקרא, את שני הממדים הקיימים בעולמו של האדם – המעורבות בחיי העולם הזה בצד השאיפה לנשגב – את היחס ביניהם, את המצוקה הקיומית ואת האתגר הטמון בכך, ולפיכך נהפכה לקלאסיקה בעולם המחשבה היהודית.
במסה זו מתמודד הרב סולוביצ'יק עם המתח השורר בין האדם ההישגי והטכנולוגי לאדם העורג לא-לוהים. הוא עושה זאת דרך לימוד מעמיק של סיפור בריאת האדם, המציג שני טיפוסים: "איש ההוד", זה הרוצה לכבוש את כוחות הטבע, לנצלם לצרכיו ולשלוט בהם, ו"איש האמונה", הנקרא לוויתור ולהקרבה כדי לממש את בריתו עם האל. לדעת הרב סולוביצ'יק שני אנשים אלה, שאותם הוא מכנה אדם-א ואדם-ב, טבועים בכל אדם באשר הוא נברא ומעצבים את תודעתו.
המסה איש האמונה הבודד היטיבה לתאר, תוך כדי פרשנות יצירתית של המקרא, את שני הממדים הקיימים בעולמו של האדם – המעורבות בחיי העולם הזה בצד השאיפה לנשגב – את היחס ביניהם, את המצוקה הקיומית ואת האתגר הטמון בכך, ולפיכך נהפכה לקלאסיקה בעולם המחשבה היהודית.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
198 people are currently reading
1979 people want to read
About the author
Joseph B. Soloveitchik
62 books65 followersRabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik (1903-1993)
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik was born into a family already known for its great Torah learning. His grandfather and father, emphasized a thorough analysis of Talmud, and it is in this way that Rav Soloveitchik studied and taught his own students. He was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, and then settled in Boston in the early 1930’s. He became Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva University, and gave weekly shiurim to senior students, while delivering philosophy lectures to graduate students. His accomplishments in both Halachic study and secular study made him a unique Torah personality to Torah scholars all over.
His limitless expertise in and appreciation of secular disciplines never lessened his total devotion to Torah study. Indeed Torah study was the central focus of his life and his teachings. His public historic shiurim in memory of his great father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, and his public shiurim between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur organized by the Rabbinical Council of America known as Kinus T’Shuva, were attended by thousands of Torah students from all groupings in the Torah community. Thus he was one of the leaders of the generation.
He never engaged in pejorative or invectives when speaking of non-orthodox Jews. He was polite and respectful to others. Yet he was firm and inflexible in protecting and advocating the Mesorah of Torah tradition. His ruling, written by him, that one is not allowed to pray in a house of worship that violates Halachic standards even if it would result in not fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tekiath Shofar is an illustration of his strong stand on Torah and Mesorah.
This can also be seen from his opinion that while dialogue with non-Jewish faiths may be necessary, it may not deal with theological topics. This was a historic principle which guided his disciples in all their dealings with non-Jewish clergy, and continues to this very day.
His teachings and shiurim are responsible for literally thousands of men and women in the educational and academic community today.
F.S.
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik was born into a family already known for its great Torah learning. His grandfather and father, emphasized a thorough analysis of Talmud, and it is in this way that Rav Soloveitchik studied and taught his own students. He was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Berlin, and then settled in Boston in the early 1930’s. He became Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva University, and gave weekly shiurim to senior students, while delivering philosophy lectures to graduate students. His accomplishments in both Halachic study and secular study made him a unique Torah personality to Torah scholars all over.
His limitless expertise in and appreciation of secular disciplines never lessened his total devotion to Torah study. Indeed Torah study was the central focus of his life and his teachings. His public historic shiurim in memory of his great father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, and his public shiurim between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur organized by the Rabbinical Council of America known as Kinus T’Shuva, were attended by thousands of Torah students from all groupings in the Torah community. Thus he was one of the leaders of the generation.
He never engaged in pejorative or invectives when speaking of non-orthodox Jews. He was polite and respectful to others. Yet he was firm and inflexible in protecting and advocating the Mesorah of Torah tradition. His ruling, written by him, that one is not allowed to pray in a house of worship that violates Halachic standards even if it would result in not fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tekiath Shofar is an illustration of his strong stand on Torah and Mesorah.
This can also be seen from his opinion that while dialogue with non-Jewish faiths may be necessary, it may not deal with theological topics. This was a historic principle which guided his disciples in all their dealings with non-Jewish clergy, and continues to this very day.
His teachings and shiurim are responsible for literally thousands of men and women in the educational and academic community today.
F.S.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
April 26, 2022
Achieving a sense of self and the dedication to study of philosophy by “the Rav” takes you on a stony path where friends, family or cherished ones have no place. This journey is one of introspection. Such is equivalent to quotidian desolation that entices delirium in many or perhaps an intellect beyond that which is known by humans today.
In this text, we face the dichotomy of two different beings in Adam. One that is worldly and the other that is “adversus.” To illustrate this paradigm, envisage Adam in the garden with flowing clear melodic rivers and in-touch with the divine. Whereas the other Adam desires dominion over the land we all know commonly as earth. Duality of man and his journey is presented within. We can choose the beastly or the divine.
"...religion is not, at the outset, a refuge of grace and mercy for the despondent and desperate, an enchanted stream for crushed spirits, but a raging clamorous torrent of man's consciousness with all its crises, pangs and torments. Turmoil and sacrifice, not comfort and placidity, are by divine edict, the hallmarks of authentic religious life.
---Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik"
To seek a life that is majestic and divine is part of the human equation. Creativity is like running “klein” scions. Adam the first participates in the orchestration of object that is redolent in beauty. His legitimate endeavors are mandated by God. Adam the second is the anthesis and in a hurry. He is not concerned of why things behave or work as they do, but what is the flipping message within and what is the reason we are here.
New friends on my lonely path are texts like Halakhic Man and The Mishneh Torah מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. Commonly now I find myself oscillating from “The Bible” to The Quran, and then to the “Guide for the Perplexed.” Such focus makes us alien to others. Two beings (like Adam the first/Adam the second) are newly born. A new self emerges---the ontological being. Arcadian. Read. Share.
In this text, we face the dichotomy of two different beings in Adam. One that is worldly and the other that is “adversus.” To illustrate this paradigm, envisage Adam in the garden with flowing clear melodic rivers and in-touch with the divine. Whereas the other Adam desires dominion over the land we all know commonly as earth. Duality of man and his journey is presented within. We can choose the beastly or the divine.
"...religion is not, at the outset, a refuge of grace and mercy for the despondent and desperate, an enchanted stream for crushed spirits, but a raging clamorous torrent of man's consciousness with all its crises, pangs and torments. Turmoil and sacrifice, not comfort and placidity, are by divine edict, the hallmarks of authentic religious life.
---Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik"
To seek a life that is majestic and divine is part of the human equation. Creativity is like running “klein” scions. Adam the first participates in the orchestration of object that is redolent in beauty. His legitimate endeavors are mandated by God. Adam the second is the anthesis and in a hurry. He is not concerned of why things behave or work as they do, but what is the flipping message within and what is the reason we are here.
New friends on my lonely path are texts like Halakhic Man and The Mishneh Torah מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. Commonly now I find myself oscillating from “The Bible” to The Quran, and then to the “Guide for the Perplexed.” Such focus makes us alien to others. Two beings (like Adam the first/Adam the second) are newly born. A new self emerges---the ontological being. Arcadian. Read. Share.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 26, 2025
Why The Man Of Faith Is Lonely
First published in 1965 in the Orthodox Jewish Journal, "Tradition", Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's essay, "The Lonely Man of Faith" has become a much-studied exploration of the nature of religious life. Soloveitchick (1903 -- 1993) is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of Jewish Orthodoxy in the United States. He was born into a family of rabbis and in 1931 received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Berlin. In 1932, he moved to Boston where he lived for the remainder of his life while also spending a great deal of time teaching in New York City. Soloveitchik wrote many works explaining and interpreting Orthodox Jewish law (halakhah). He is frequently known by the honorific title, the Rav.
"The Lonely Man of Faith" is a strikingly personal, introspective work. Soloveitchik wants to focus on the personal situation and dilemmas faced by the "man of faith" and to explore how these dilemmas originate and what they mean to the religious life. It begins with Soloveitchik's plan to expound the simple sentence, "I am lonely." The book is difficult and erudite. It refers not only to traditional Jewish sources but also to a range of philosophers including Plotinus, Descartes, Kant, and Kierkegaard. Martin Buber's "I and Thou" is also a critically important work for this essay.
It is important to consider the intended audience for this essay. Published in an Orthodox Jewish periodical, the frame of reference of this work and the specifics of the exposition is Jewish Orthodoxy. The questions the book poses, however, are much broader and can be applied to the lives of serious individuals within any faith tradition. Indeed, late in the work Soloveitchik suggests that with the threat of the "dreary, mechanical world" of the present, the issues of the book may also in some cases "be pertinent even to secular man." Soloveitchik's book has been read by individuals of different religious faiths and thus has gone well beyond a work of Jewish Orthodoxy. The determination of the audience for the book, between sectarianism on the one hand and all people of faith on the other hand mirrors the basic issue the book poses of the difficult place of religious faith in the modern world in particular.
Soloveitchik develops his dilemmas by drawing a distinction between the two versions of the creation of Adam found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. Adam 1, developed in the first account, shows man in his dignity and majesty. In this account, man rules over the natural world and develops art and culture through use of his intelligence. Woman, created at the same time as man, joins him as a partner in the pragmatic subdual of nature. Adam 2, in contrast, develops from loneliness. He is in need of redemption from the outset. When Adam 2 realizes he is alone, God creates woman from his rib. Adam 2 is in search of God and intimacy as opposed to, say, the business partner model of Adam 1. Adam 2 comes to know God, at least in the Jewish context, through prophecy and prayer and to the formation of a covenant between God and man as set out in the Torah. Soloveitchik stresses that Adam 1 and Adam 2 are aspects of the same person and of humanity. The divergent goals and approaches of Adam 1 and Adam 2 are both divinely created.
The book explores at some length the different natures between the two Adams. The loneliness of the man of faith derives from the loneliness of Adam 2 at first but it goes deeper. The loneliness derives from the conflict between the two natures of man and from the efforts of the "man of faith" to live both in the worlds of Adam 1 and 2. Soloveitchik takes his analysis to the time of mid-Twentieth Century. He finds the problem growing acute with the continued triumphs of technology -- more than once he offers the space program as an example. Soloveitchik draws a distinction between conventional religion in the churches and synagogues which he finds in danger of becoming overly-pragmatic under the spell of Adam 1. The "man of faith", of whatever denomination is a lonely figure who is rarely heard over the din and who must struggle and suffer to be understood. The book closes with a Biblical illustration of the "lonely man of faith" in the story of the calling of Elisha in I Kings, 19.
This is a thoughtful, poignant book that I had the opportunity to read almost by chance. I am far removed from Orthodox Judaism. The book describes dilemmas that many individuals will find familiar. While the textual analysis is Jewish, the problems are universal. Among other things, I found Soloveitchik's book an antidote to overly topical, overly politicized discussion in religious thought and in other kinds of thinking about the human condition. There is much to be learned from this book by "people of faith" regardless of whether that faith is theologically or even religiously based.
Robin Friedman
First published in 1965 in the Orthodox Jewish Journal, "Tradition", Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's essay, "The Lonely Man of Faith" has become a much-studied exploration of the nature of religious life. Soloveitchick (1903 -- 1993) is widely regarded as the intellectual leader of Jewish Orthodoxy in the United States. He was born into a family of rabbis and in 1931 received his PhD in philosophy from the University of Berlin. In 1932, he moved to Boston where he lived for the remainder of his life while also spending a great deal of time teaching in New York City. Soloveitchik wrote many works explaining and interpreting Orthodox Jewish law (halakhah). He is frequently known by the honorific title, the Rav.
"The Lonely Man of Faith" is a strikingly personal, introspective work. Soloveitchik wants to focus on the personal situation and dilemmas faced by the "man of faith" and to explore how these dilemmas originate and what they mean to the religious life. It begins with Soloveitchik's plan to expound the simple sentence, "I am lonely." The book is difficult and erudite. It refers not only to traditional Jewish sources but also to a range of philosophers including Plotinus, Descartes, Kant, and Kierkegaard. Martin Buber's "I and Thou" is also a critically important work for this essay.
It is important to consider the intended audience for this essay. Published in an Orthodox Jewish periodical, the frame of reference of this work and the specifics of the exposition is Jewish Orthodoxy. The questions the book poses, however, are much broader and can be applied to the lives of serious individuals within any faith tradition. Indeed, late in the work Soloveitchik suggests that with the threat of the "dreary, mechanical world" of the present, the issues of the book may also in some cases "be pertinent even to secular man." Soloveitchik's book has been read by individuals of different religious faiths and thus has gone well beyond a work of Jewish Orthodoxy. The determination of the audience for the book, between sectarianism on the one hand and all people of faith on the other hand mirrors the basic issue the book poses of the difficult place of religious faith in the modern world in particular.
Soloveitchik develops his dilemmas by drawing a distinction between the two versions of the creation of Adam found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis. Adam 1, developed in the first account, shows man in his dignity and majesty. In this account, man rules over the natural world and develops art and culture through use of his intelligence. Woman, created at the same time as man, joins him as a partner in the pragmatic subdual of nature. Adam 2, in contrast, develops from loneliness. He is in need of redemption from the outset. When Adam 2 realizes he is alone, God creates woman from his rib. Adam 2 is in search of God and intimacy as opposed to, say, the business partner model of Adam 1. Adam 2 comes to know God, at least in the Jewish context, through prophecy and prayer and to the formation of a covenant between God and man as set out in the Torah. Soloveitchik stresses that Adam 1 and Adam 2 are aspects of the same person and of humanity. The divergent goals and approaches of Adam 1 and Adam 2 are both divinely created.
The book explores at some length the different natures between the two Adams. The loneliness of the man of faith derives from the loneliness of Adam 2 at first but it goes deeper. The loneliness derives from the conflict between the two natures of man and from the efforts of the "man of faith" to live both in the worlds of Adam 1 and 2. Soloveitchik takes his analysis to the time of mid-Twentieth Century. He finds the problem growing acute with the continued triumphs of technology -- more than once he offers the space program as an example. Soloveitchik draws a distinction between conventional religion in the churches and synagogues which he finds in danger of becoming overly-pragmatic under the spell of Adam 1. The "man of faith", of whatever denomination is a lonely figure who is rarely heard over the din and who must struggle and suffer to be understood. The book closes with a Biblical illustration of the "lonely man of faith" in the story of the calling of Elisha in I Kings, 19.
This is a thoughtful, poignant book that I had the opportunity to read almost by chance. I am far removed from Orthodox Judaism. The book describes dilemmas that many individuals will find familiar. While the textual analysis is Jewish, the problems are universal. Among other things, I found Soloveitchik's book an antidote to overly topical, overly politicized discussion in religious thought and in other kinds of thinking about the human condition. There is much to be learned from this book by "people of faith" regardless of whether that faith is theologically or even religiously based.
Robin Friedman
February 11, 2015
This profound, challenging theological argument is going to stay with me for a while. At some point in the past humanity didn't keep records, created no "creature comforts" in the way that we enjoy them today; agriculture, medicine, and warfare existed only in its primitive forms; all in all we appear to have had very little self-consciousness as a species. Then everything changed: we became aware of some larger purpose on this earth. We started organizing ourselves better for the greater good of all; we wrote things down.
Soloveitchik takes a look at this split, the moment self-consciousness appeared among humanity in cultural form as expressed in the Torah, specifically Genesis and the two Adams he sees therein. He describes the split as God making Himself known among ourselves.
Adam the first is our cosmic-majestic selves, accepting the challenges of the outside world in order to survive and conquer it, to learn about the universe, to explore. It is this part that impels us to take joint action. Adam the first congregates through accomplishment and not the covenant faith. Adam the first identifies with our intellectual nature and creative technological will. There is no existential angst and absurdity to the "I" if you are engaged in a greater project for all humankind. Adam the first sees humanity in its glory but fails to see it in its tragic plight. It is a work community committed to the production, distribution and consumption of material and cultural goods. God gave Adam the first the mandate to subdue nature. He does not wish to simply live along with nature but to understand its secrets. The question "How does the cosmos function?" is much more important to him than "Why is there a cosmos at all?"
In what to me is the most fascinating aspect of Soloveitchik's argument, the notion of "dignity" to Adam the first is not something we are inherently born with. Humankind only acquires it by dominating nature, exercising control over it, which gives us glory through a majestic posture vis-a-vis the environment. Man of old who could not fight disease or any other plague, made low with degrading helplessness, could not lay claim to dignity. Only those who build hospitals, discover therapeutic techniques, and save lives are blessed with dignity. Adam the first is aggressive, bold and victory-minded. The cosmos will not destroy us.
All fine and well. But why is this common pursuit for the sake of all not entirely satisfactory? It is Adam the second who asks the question fundamental to Soloveitchik's argument: why am I beset by this feeling of loneliness and being unwanted? Only the covenantal community under God can alleviate this loneliness. This loneliness itself is communication with God. It is not necessarily understood in sacred places, of temple, church or synagogue. It can only be understood within the depths of one's being. Those living within the depths of this covenantal community understand that one's "I" is unique and cannot be duplicated, imitated or explained to others. Consequently the loneliness, the feeling of being unwanted. "To be" means to recognize yourself as singular and different, frighteningly unique. As such, only Adam the second knows the art of prayer since he confronts God with the petition of the many while in his loneliness. Adam the first works for the many, but cannot make his appeal for the sake of the many convinced of the majesty and the glory. Ontological questions do not concern him.
Job did pray, he did offer sacrifices, but only for his household. Job failed to understand the covenantal nature of the prayer community in which destinies are dovetailed, suffering or joy is shared, and prayers merge into one petition on behalf of all.
Job's catastrophes could not be blamed on God; these merely instructed him about Adam the second for which he had been ignorant.
And that's the heart of Soloveitchik's argument: that most of us are Adam the first people. Even those who are atheists should be able to find themselves among that multitude. Though only those of the covenant can really understand the true nature of Adam the second. They are outnumbered since not everyone accepts the Judaic tradition (or by extension the Judeo-Christian one). The impossibility of the dilemma is that it is up to Adam the second to instruct Adam the first on his blind acceptance of glory and the cosmic-majestic (who may be unwittingly destroying us and our place on the planet through his triumphant sense of "progress"). But there are no words with which to instruct Adam the first. Thus "the lonely man of faith".
Soloveitchik takes a look at this split, the moment self-consciousness appeared among humanity in cultural form as expressed in the Torah, specifically Genesis and the two Adams he sees therein. He describes the split as God making Himself known among ourselves.
Adam the first is our cosmic-majestic selves, accepting the challenges of the outside world in order to survive and conquer it, to learn about the universe, to explore. It is this part that impels us to take joint action. Adam the first congregates through accomplishment and not the covenant faith. Adam the first identifies with our intellectual nature and creative technological will. There is no existential angst and absurdity to the "I" if you are engaged in a greater project for all humankind. Adam the first sees humanity in its glory but fails to see it in its tragic plight. It is a work community committed to the production, distribution and consumption of material and cultural goods. God gave Adam the first the mandate to subdue nature. He does not wish to simply live along with nature but to understand its secrets. The question "How does the cosmos function?" is much more important to him than "Why is there a cosmos at all?"
In what to me is the most fascinating aspect of Soloveitchik's argument, the notion of "dignity" to Adam the first is not something we are inherently born with. Humankind only acquires it by dominating nature, exercising control over it, which gives us glory through a majestic posture vis-a-vis the environment. Man of old who could not fight disease or any other plague, made low with degrading helplessness, could not lay claim to dignity. Only those who build hospitals, discover therapeutic techniques, and save lives are blessed with dignity. Adam the first is aggressive, bold and victory-minded. The cosmos will not destroy us.
All fine and well. But why is this common pursuit for the sake of all not entirely satisfactory? It is Adam the second who asks the question fundamental to Soloveitchik's argument: why am I beset by this feeling of loneliness and being unwanted? Only the covenantal community under God can alleviate this loneliness. This loneliness itself is communication with God. It is not necessarily understood in sacred places, of temple, church or synagogue. It can only be understood within the depths of one's being. Those living within the depths of this covenantal community understand that one's "I" is unique and cannot be duplicated, imitated or explained to others. Consequently the loneliness, the feeling of being unwanted. "To be" means to recognize yourself as singular and different, frighteningly unique. As such, only Adam the second knows the art of prayer since he confronts God with the petition of the many while in his loneliness. Adam the first works for the many, but cannot make his appeal for the sake of the many convinced of the majesty and the glory. Ontological questions do not concern him.
Job did pray, he did offer sacrifices, but only for his household. Job failed to understand the covenantal nature of the prayer community in which destinies are dovetailed, suffering or joy is shared, and prayers merge into one petition on behalf of all.
Job's catastrophes could not be blamed on God; these merely instructed him about Adam the second for which he had been ignorant.
And that's the heart of Soloveitchik's argument: that most of us are Adam the first people. Even those who are atheists should be able to find themselves among that multitude. Though only those of the covenant can really understand the true nature of Adam the second. They are outnumbered since not everyone accepts the Judaic tradition (or by extension the Judeo-Christian one). The impossibility of the dilemma is that it is up to Adam the second to instruct Adam the first on his blind acceptance of glory and the cosmic-majestic (who may be unwittingly destroying us and our place on the planet through his triumphant sense of "progress"). But there are no words with which to instruct Adam the first. Thus "the lonely man of faith".
December 15, 2014
This short but dense book was, I'm not afraid to admit, way over my head. There were fleeting moments that provided complete clarity for me but mostly I felt like I was just reading sentences that I couldn't connect together in my head. Had I chosen to study the book I'm sure I would have been able to get at some of the meat but in my cursory reading I'm not sure I took anything the author intended. However, upon stepping back, I realized (I think) that I'd read a fascinating meditation on what it means to be "in community" from a religious perspective. Although I know intellectually that religion is a communal exercise, I have never found community there myself and so I think of it from an individual (and lonely) perspective. This particular interpretation of the scripture was really helpful for me to understand the roots of communal prayer in the tradition I grew up in.
I also appreciated some things that the author took for granted regarding the nature religious and secular thought and the fact that he does not see the insurmountable conflict and contradiction that others often see - this, to me, was comforting. I also found an amazing quote at the very beginning that I cherished: "All I want is to follow the advice given by Elihu, the son of Berachel of old, who said, 'I will speak that I may find relief'; for there is a redemptive quality for an agitated mind in the spoken word, and a tormented soul finds peace in confessing."
I also appreciated some things that the author took for granted regarding the nature religious and secular thought and the fact that he does not see the insurmountable conflict and contradiction that others often see - this, to me, was comforting. I also found an amazing quote at the very beginning that I cherished: "All I want is to follow the advice given by Elihu, the son of Berachel of old, who said, 'I will speak that I may find relief'; for there is a redemptive quality for an agitated mind in the spoken word, and a tormented soul finds peace in confessing."
May 3, 2014
I saw a TED talk by David Brooks on living for your resume or your eulogy, and he mentioned this work by Soloveitchik. This is a pretty good essay on the difference between two sides of us: Adam 1 and Adam 2. Adam 1 is described in Genesis 1:
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and all over the earth.
Adam 2 is described in Genesis 2:
And the eternal God formed the man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. And the eternal God planted a garden eastward in Eden… And the eternal God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to serve it and to keep it.
Adam 1 was charged with having dominion over the earth, to fill the earth and subdue it. “Adam the first is aggressive, bold, and victory-minded. His motto is success, triumph over the cosmic forces. He engages in creative work, trying to imitate his Maker.” (18)
Adam 2 does not strive to be in charge of the world, but strives to understand the world in which he lives. “He encounters the universe in all its colorfulness, splendor, and grandeur, and studies it with the naïveté, awe, and admiration of the child who seeks the unusual and wonderful in every ordinary thing and event.” (23)
I thought some of the statements on prayer versus prophecy were interesting. He noted that while prayer is someone standing before God, prophecy is God standing before someone. “If man crabs to meet God in prayer, then he must purge himself of all that separates him from God. The Halakhah has never looked upon prayer as a separate magical gesture in which man may engage without integrating it into the total pattern of his live. God hearkens to prayer if it rises from a heart contrite over a muddled and faulty life and from a resolute mind ready to redeem this life.” (65)
He also states that the balance between the two Adams is not in perfect balance. “Majestic Adam [Adam 1] has developed a demonic quality: laying claim to unlimited power-alas, to infinity itself. His pride is almost boundless, his imagination arrogant, and he aspires to complete and absolute control of everything.” (102)
He also says that Adam 1 tends to seek religion as an objective itself, not as a means to grow closer to God. “He [Adam 1], of course, comes to a place of worship. He attends lectures on religion and appreciates the ceremonial, yet he is searching not for a faith in all its singularity and otherness, but for religious culture. He seeks not the greatness found in sacrificial action but the convenience one discovers in a comfortable, serene state of mind. He is desirous of an aesthetic experience rather than a covenantal one, of a social ethos rather than a divine imperative.” (103)
This is a short, but interesting essay from an Orthodox Jewish point of view, presenting an interesting commentary on the variety of things that we are commanded to do, and how we seem to interpret and weigh those callings.
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and all over the earth.
Adam 2 is described in Genesis 2:
And the eternal God formed the man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. And the eternal God planted a garden eastward in Eden… And the eternal God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to serve it and to keep it.
Adam 1 was charged with having dominion over the earth, to fill the earth and subdue it. “Adam the first is aggressive, bold, and victory-minded. His motto is success, triumph over the cosmic forces. He engages in creative work, trying to imitate his Maker.” (18)
Adam 2 does not strive to be in charge of the world, but strives to understand the world in which he lives. “He encounters the universe in all its colorfulness, splendor, and grandeur, and studies it with the naïveté, awe, and admiration of the child who seeks the unusual and wonderful in every ordinary thing and event.” (23)
I thought some of the statements on prayer versus prophecy were interesting. He noted that while prayer is someone standing before God, prophecy is God standing before someone. “If man crabs to meet God in prayer, then he must purge himself of all that separates him from God. The Halakhah has never looked upon prayer as a separate magical gesture in which man may engage without integrating it into the total pattern of his live. God hearkens to prayer if it rises from a heart contrite over a muddled and faulty life and from a resolute mind ready to redeem this life.” (65)
He also states that the balance between the two Adams is not in perfect balance. “Majestic Adam [Adam 1] has developed a demonic quality: laying claim to unlimited power-alas, to infinity itself. His pride is almost boundless, his imagination arrogant, and he aspires to complete and absolute control of everything.” (102)
He also says that Adam 1 tends to seek religion as an objective itself, not as a means to grow closer to God. “He [Adam 1], of course, comes to a place of worship. He attends lectures on religion and appreciates the ceremonial, yet he is searching not for a faith in all its singularity and otherness, but for religious culture. He seeks not the greatness found in sacrificial action but the convenience one discovers in a comfortable, serene state of mind. He is desirous of an aesthetic experience rather than a covenantal one, of a social ethos rather than a divine imperative.” (103)
This is a short, but interesting essay from an Orthodox Jewish point of view, presenting an interesting commentary on the variety of things that we are commanded to do, and how we seem to interpret and weigh those callings.
December 3, 2016
This profound, slender volume deals with a core conflict of modern life - between an active live based on material success vs. an internal contemplative life. Solivechick puts this in religious terms (as the name implies) but most of the concepts will apply to anyone.
- The two different stories in Genesis about Adam display two archetypes. Adam one - the utilitarian, social, material person motived by success and fame. The second Adam is the “lonely” Adam is focused on his relationship to the divine, to sacrifice, to what the world needs from him.
- Both Adams reside in each of us.
- Both Adams are good and needed.
- The conflict is dialectal, and unsolvable
- But the conflict is also good and needed.
- We can only balance two Adams in each of us. The balance will never be peaceful or constant, but can lead to a flourishing life.
- Adam one without faith falls into materialism, while Adam two without the world is absconding from his responsibility to world.
- Interesting notes. The difference between faith communities and religious communities (which are still materialistic)
- The two different stories in Genesis about Adam display two archetypes. Adam one - the utilitarian, social, material person motived by success and fame. The second Adam is the “lonely” Adam is focused on his relationship to the divine, to sacrifice, to what the world needs from him.
- Both Adams reside in each of us.
- Both Adams are good and needed.
- The conflict is dialectal, and unsolvable
- But the conflict is also good and needed.
- We can only balance two Adams in each of us. The balance will never be peaceful or constant, but can lead to a flourishing life.
- Adam one without faith falls into materialism, while Adam two without the world is absconding from his responsibility to world.
- Interesting notes. The difference between faith communities and religious communities (which are still materialistic)
February 6, 2021
It was an interesting read, brain bleed notwithstanding. Giving it 4 stars because it could’ve explained things slightly better.
Also because Amy will stop judging my rating system...
Also because Amy will stop judging my rating system...
July 14, 2022
Escrito en los años 60, este corto ensayo, profundamente enraizado en la experiencia personal del autor, rabino notable, expone la dialéctica de los dos Adanes, uno representante de la vocación humana de conquista del medio natural y otro centrado en la alianza con Dios, cuya soledad esencial es analizada en este texto. Soledad a la que se añade una capa específica del tiempo presente, en el que la primacía del primer Adán es tan abrumadora, que el segundo Adán se ve relegado a una situación de extrema marginalidad. Estos dos adanes son la contradicción real que anida en todo ser humano y es consecuencia de ello el vaivén irresoluble que mueve de un lugar a otro, de un tipo a otro, al hombre.
Para interesados en la experiencia de fe en un mundo como el actual.
Para interesados en la experiencia de fe en un mundo como el actual.
May 30, 2019
One of the most difficult reads I've encountered: the Rav's writing is very dense and each sentence requires several readings to understand his true meaning. The vocabulary is advanced as are the ideas teeming within this small, innocent-looking volume. Worth the read, and definitely worth a re-read (as I will inevitably have to do, since there's no way I got everything I can from this essay!). Rabbi Soloveitchik (called affectionately "The Rav") is one of the preeminent rabbinical minds of the 20th century, grappling with the growing modernization that surrounded him during his lifetime (1930's-1990's in America) and the issues that modern Jews faced in the U.S. during that period. In "Lonely Man of Faith," the Rav speaks to the struggle between the "Two Adams" - the majestic Adam who seeks to conquer the physical world (exemplified in our day as financial success, philosophical and scientific domination, as well as "physical" success such as fitness and beauty)- and the spiritual Adam whose sole driving force is to reach out to God and, through the study of Torah and the fulfillment of the commandments therein, strengthen his relationship with God.
This is getting long, so I'll leave the rest for the reader made curious by this (very lacking) review.
This is getting long, so I'll leave the rest for the reader made curious by this (very lacking) review.
July 1, 2011
This is my first ever reading experience with the Rav, which is actually surprising to me. Nonetheless, the experience was enriching. While I don't necessarily agree with a fine heap of his finer points, the educated clarity is refreshing. I always say that books should make me reach for a dictionary. This one certainly did, especially for fascinating latin phrases.
The book opens with an eloquent d'var torah, which serves as the basis for the entire book's message, which is: we must be engaged in this world on the spiritual and secular planes. One will not do without the other. One necessitates the other.
Just like Kosher Nation made me appreciate kashrus, so did this book make me appreciate prayer. In a single paragraph, he explained its purpose better than anyone ever has to me.
Certainly I will be reading more of his works. What took me so long? Well, philosophy has always been difficult for me to wrap my head around, but my recent onslaught of reading has made things easier.
Perhaps now I'll revisit Kant and actually understand what he's saying.
The book opens with an eloquent d'var torah, which serves as the basis for the entire book's message, which is: we must be engaged in this world on the spiritual and secular planes. One will not do without the other. One necessitates the other.
Just like Kosher Nation made me appreciate kashrus, so did this book make me appreciate prayer. In a single paragraph, he explained its purpose better than anyone ever has to me.
Certainly I will be reading more of his works. What took me so long? Well, philosophy has always been difficult for me to wrap my head around, but my recent onslaught of reading has made things easier.
Perhaps now I'll revisit Kant and actually understand what he's saying.
September 8, 2020
Some people cannot appreciate the intrinsic value of eisegesis. This book however, is probably the best example of it being as true and practical as any other way of interpreting scripture. Any person who can attest to a personal, genuine faith, will find a compelling relatibility with Soloveitchik's dualistic-Adam paradigm.
We were made for God as much as we were made for this world; and that brings a whole lot a problems that we need answers for. Some of those answers are brought to wonderfully poetic clarity in this volume.
We were made for God as much as we were made for this world; and that brings a whole lot a problems that we need answers for. Some of those answers are brought to wonderfully poetic clarity in this volume.
January 7, 2018
Remarkable impressions
Rabbi Soloveitchik, known as the Rav, presents interesting ideas concerning the dual nature of humans and the status of this nature in modernity. That status, says the Rav, is bleak because the practical self, recognized and valued in today’s world, is alienated from its spiritual self with little apparent utility.
Where the Rav does best is a reinterpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Their different order of creation separated by barely a page stymies the modern fact-checker like me. But the Rav’s view is richer. Ignoring details of creation sequence, he claims they’re both true. Referencing biblical text, the Adam of chapter 1 gets his marching orders to “harness and dominate the elemental natural forces and put them at his disposal,” writes Soloveitchik. Seeking how things work, Adam 1 strives “to vanquish disease, conquer space, forge political structures…” Adam 1 is victor over nature. (Recall, ancient Hebrews lived in a desert that will kill the unprepared. No wonder nature was a hostile).
But Adam of chapter 2 is instead overpowered to the point of unconscious, when he must sacrifice a part of his own body for something greater than himself and his achievements—Eve—the answer to his loneliness. Something Adam 1 is too busy to consider. Adam 2 asks not how the universe is the way it is, but why? Adam 2 “is aware of an endless past which rolled on without him,” writes the Rav. “He is aware also of an endless future which will rush on with no less force long after he will cease to exist. The link between the ‘before’ in which he was not involved and the ‘after’ from which he will be excluded is the present moment, which vanishes before it is experienced. In fact, the whole accidental character of his being is tied up with this frightening time-consciousness.” Beautiful. And so nice to know I’m not the only one seized by this realization.
For the Rav, this was the intension of God, to create this seemingly impossible gap, forcing humans to manage a way to live in both worlds. With a secular view, aware of how the Bible was collated, I wonder, did the ancients intend just what Soloveitchik claims? To enunciate our competing nature in the very first two pages? His argument is so convincing I’m inclined to think so.
This book raised another question as I read it. Was the Levantine’s full departure from nature religions—elements of them still part of surrounding cultures at the time—what created the seemingly impossible gap? Not the disconnect between Adam 1 and 2, but that 2 no longer had concrete access with a spiritual world as 1 had with his practical materialism. Once God was exiled from nature, God was no longer directly reachable in the outer world by Adam 2, but rather through the abstract inner world of prayer. By Louis Dumont’s Essays on Individualism this inward turn was part and parcel of all Axial Age movements, including Judaism.
Soloveitchik’s book left me with remarkable impressions: other ways to view human nature, our modern conundrum, and writings of the ancients.
Rabbi Soloveitchik, known as the Rav, presents interesting ideas concerning the dual nature of humans and the status of this nature in modernity. That status, says the Rav, is bleak because the practical self, recognized and valued in today’s world, is alienated from its spiritual self with little apparent utility.
Where the Rav does best is a reinterpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Their different order of creation separated by barely a page stymies the modern fact-checker like me. But the Rav’s view is richer. Ignoring details of creation sequence, he claims they’re both true. Referencing biblical text, the Adam of chapter 1 gets his marching orders to “harness and dominate the elemental natural forces and put them at his disposal,” writes Soloveitchik. Seeking how things work, Adam 1 strives “to vanquish disease, conquer space, forge political structures…” Adam 1 is victor over nature. (Recall, ancient Hebrews lived in a desert that will kill the unprepared. No wonder nature was a hostile).
But Adam of chapter 2 is instead overpowered to the point of unconscious, when he must sacrifice a part of his own body for something greater than himself and his achievements—Eve—the answer to his loneliness. Something Adam 1 is too busy to consider. Adam 2 asks not how the universe is the way it is, but why? Adam 2 “is aware of an endless past which rolled on without him,” writes the Rav. “He is aware also of an endless future which will rush on with no less force long after he will cease to exist. The link between the ‘before’ in which he was not involved and the ‘after’ from which he will be excluded is the present moment, which vanishes before it is experienced. In fact, the whole accidental character of his being is tied up with this frightening time-consciousness.” Beautiful. And so nice to know I’m not the only one seized by this realization.
For the Rav, this was the intension of God, to create this seemingly impossible gap, forcing humans to manage a way to live in both worlds. With a secular view, aware of how the Bible was collated, I wonder, did the ancients intend just what Soloveitchik claims? To enunciate our competing nature in the very first two pages? His argument is so convincing I’m inclined to think so.
This book raised another question as I read it. Was the Levantine’s full departure from nature religions—elements of them still part of surrounding cultures at the time—what created the seemingly impossible gap? Not the disconnect between Adam 1 and 2, but that 2 no longer had concrete access with a spiritual world as 1 had with his practical materialism. Once God was exiled from nature, God was no longer directly reachable in the outer world by Adam 2, but rather through the abstract inner world of prayer. By Louis Dumont’s Essays on Individualism this inward turn was part and parcel of all Axial Age movements, including Judaism.
Soloveitchik’s book left me with remarkable impressions: other ways to view human nature, our modern conundrum, and writings of the ancients.
October 20, 2025
2025-10-20
Review 2025.09.003
Reviewers Note: It is the middle of 2025 and I am not doing a good job of keeping up with this desired goal of mine to write book reviews. I do not want to lower my expectations but I am going to so that I can catch up. This will mean short reviews on the books I read.
The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph B. Soloveitchik
128 Pages
Currently (2025-10-20), I only have two books in my all time best list. This book and “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. I should probably read the Dawkins book again to see if it holds up to my memory of it. This ranking is based on challenging me to think.
This was my second time reading it through. I was afraid the second time I read it would diminish the quality but it did not. The second time through I took my time and made notes as I highlighted passages. I also made notes on a few highlights from the first read. So good!
Review 2025.09.003
Reviewers Note: It is the middle of 2025 and I am not doing a good job of keeping up with this desired goal of mine to write book reviews. I do not want to lower my expectations but I am going to so that I can catch up. This will mean short reviews on the books I read.
The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph B. Soloveitchik
128 Pages
Currently (2025-10-20), I only have two books in my all time best list. This book and “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. I should probably read the Dawkins book again to see if it holds up to my memory of it. This ranking is based on challenging me to think.
This was my second time reading it through. I was afraid the second time I read it would diminish the quality but it did not. The second time through I took my time and made notes as I highlighted passages. I also made notes on a few highlights from the first read. So good!
March 5, 2025
Boken skiller mellom Adam 1 og 2, og utforsker dermed det spirituelle og eksistensielle utfordringene for en religiøs person in den moderne verden, aka the lonely man. Boken falt ikke i smak hos meg, og det blir mer skimming enn lesing på slutten.
- "The lonely man" er en som føler seg isolert fordi deres åndelige ambisjoner og forpliktelser skiller dem fra det sekulære, suksessdrevne samfunnet.
- Adam I representerer den majestetiske, kreative og påståelige siden av menneskeheten, fokusert på å mestre verden og oppnå suksess.
- Adam II representerer den paktlige, ydmyke og introspektive siden, fokusert på relasjoner med Gud og andre, og søker mening og åndelig oppfyllelse.
- "The lonely man" er en som føler seg isolert fordi deres åndelige ambisjoner og forpliktelser skiller dem fra det sekulære, suksessdrevne samfunnet.
- Adam I representerer den majestetiske, kreative og påståelige siden av menneskeheten, fokusert på å mestre verden og oppnå suksess.
- Adam II representerer den paktlige, ydmyke og introspektive siden, fokusert på relasjoner med Gud og andre, og søker mening og åndelig oppfyllelse.
October 30, 2024
“As a matter of fact, at the level of his cosmic confrontation with God, man is faced with an exasperating paradox. On the one hand, he beholds God in every nook and corner of creation, in the flowering of the plant, in the rushing of the tide, and in the movement of his own muscle, as if God were close to and beside man, engaging him in a friendly dialogue. And yet the very moment man turns his face to God, he finds Him remote, unapproachable, enveloped in transcendence and mystery.”, p. 46
February 21, 2024
Genuinely I don't think my head has wrapped itself around this book yet. Soloveitchik frames modern man and society in parallel to the two stories of Adam. The first "Majestic" Adam, made to rule over the earth, and the second "Covenantal" Adam, made to keep the earth. This reflects directly onto the modern Man of Culture and the modern Man of Faith. These two personae need to be held in dialectic for a whole and complete picture of being. I will discuss more with my Chavruta and Rabbi and hopefully the wisdom of this sage will reveal itself more to me. I enjoyed the read but I am still processing it.
February 13, 2023
Struggles thru macho solipsism to arrive at some useful and occasionally beautiful thoughts that could have been summed up in a few sentences. If you want something like this but more, dare I say, Adam the Second, read To The Wedding by John Berger
January 8, 2023
Interesting and innovative but very dense and confusing. Definitely the kind of essay that needs to be read through more than once in order to fully understand its layers of meaning.
July 15, 2024
Amazing but can be a bit tough to understand at times
February 15, 2018
A beautiful account on the lonely night of the soul for the seeker. Recommended for anyone of any denomination. Five points mainly for the point that his basic notion of two adams is, as far as I'm concerned, a crucially important and in the best way "true" take on reality.
October 8, 2013
Oh me of little faith ... I was mildly embarrassed to be checking this book out (never mind that I had no idea who the person at the desk even was!) because it was kind of like saying "I'm lonely." When in a way that's exactly what the author, Joseph Soloveitchik, intended. He writes about the two different creation stories in Genesis, how they describe the creation of two different Adams: the first Adam and the second Adam, both of which are contained in each of us. Deftly moving from the Scripture through philosophy and history and back again, with a tantalizing smidgen of science thrown in, Soloveitchik makes the case that we are too focused on the first, "majestic" Adam and have neglected the important role of the second, "convenantal" Adam. He's right, to the point that a certain person can have a pang of shame at even checking out a book with "lonely" in the title.
Soloveitchik does not argue that the first Adam should be ignored or done away with, any more than he would argue that the first account of creation in Genesis should be done away with. Rather, he argues that there is a movement (a dialectical one) between the two Adams in each of our lives. As someone who works in science, you could say that I very easily lose sight of the second Adam and focus on the first. My own Weter lecture was primarily about the first Adam, in fact.
Reading this book reminded me more than anything of stepping into the world of Chaim Potok's communities, and it proved as spiritually refreshing. As a Christian, I see Christ as the second Adam personified, humble and completely God's, and lonely, then, after the ordeal of ordeals, raised to newness of life as the first Adam. I see the seeds of most everything I believe in the vibrant words of this book and its own faithfulness to the words of Genesis and the prophets. Highly recommended.
Soloveitchik does not argue that the first Adam should be ignored or done away with, any more than he would argue that the first account of creation in Genesis should be done away with. Rather, he argues that there is a movement (a dialectical one) between the two Adams in each of our lives. As someone who works in science, you could say that I very easily lose sight of the second Adam and focus on the first. My own Weter lecture was primarily about the first Adam, in fact.
Reading this book reminded me more than anything of stepping into the world of Chaim Potok's communities, and it proved as spiritually refreshing. As a Christian, I see Christ as the second Adam personified, humble and completely God's, and lonely, then, after the ordeal of ordeals, raised to newness of life as the first Adam. I see the seeds of most everything I believe in the vibrant words of this book and its own faithfulness to the words of Genesis and the prophets. Highly recommended.
January 19, 2011
Rabbi Soloveitchik's The Lonely Man of Faith is awe-inspiring and inspirational. I don't believe that Soloveitchik intended it as inspiration - he frames his essay as a discussion of a feeling that he himself has, and that he believes others may have as well: the loneliness experienced as a person engaged in a covenantal lifestyle rather than a utilitarian one.
He lays out the difference between a covenantal approach to God and a religious one - that is to say that the former is ineffable while the latter can be co-opted by humanity's utilitarian nature, and in so doing opened my eyes to the some inadequacies in my own encounter with God via prayer.
The book is short and easy to read, and highly recommended.
He lays out the difference between a covenantal approach to God and a religious one - that is to say that the former is ineffable while the latter can be co-opted by humanity's utilitarian nature, and in so doing opened my eyes to the some inadequacies in my own encounter with God via prayer.
The book is short and easy to read, and highly recommended.
February 19, 2014
when i read this book, i was blown away by Soloveitchik's insight into the nature of man and woman and our relationship to God. his concept of Adam One and Adam Two was profound and made clear many of my own frustrations and confusions regarding my faith. a must-read for anyone struggling with faith, with God, with loneliness.
February 28, 2007
Very powerful and thought provoking.
April 4, 2014
Just revisited this quite amazing book.
May 4, 2015
I should probably re-read this. I barely remember anything about it, other than I found the style dry at the time.
July 24, 2025
This short-but-dense work by Rav Soloveitchik does a great job of explaining his view of why experiencing existential loneliness is necessarily, and an intended and purposeful, part of human life. This must be a worthwhile understanding to reach! It is a necessary feeling he says when we comprehend ourselves as an "I" that is just being, not ceaselessly doing, and realize that there is no other human in existence who can experience what it is like to be "I", or fully understand our own "I" experience. We are alone, and it is not a matter of being surrounded by others, or not. He calls this the realization of the "second Adam", referring to the two creation of man (mankind) stories in Genesis; "first Adam" being the Genesis 1 man charged to subdue the earth, to achieve and conquer and create, and "second Adam" being the Genesis 2 man charged instead to cultivate and keep what already is. Both Adams are, in fact, us, conflicting as they are, and stamped upon us.
While first Adam is content to exist in the natural work environment and able to communicate with another person as far as is needed there, second Adam must seek out a different kind of community in response to his ontological incompleteness. In this faith community it is not just two people participating, but us and He together, "the He in whom all being is rooted and in whom everything finds its rehabilitation and, consequently, redemption". Man and God meet as free partners in the covenantal relationship, alleviating our existential loneliness; and in joining together with others in the existential experience of being we also commune with our fellow man in a way that better meets the needs of second Adam.
He has a great helpful description of prayer in the context of Judaism, which might work as well for other liturgical religious traditions that use specific texts for prayer (and thus find themselves in danger of becoming rote):
From there the Rav continues on to describe what he sees as time-specific factors that contribute to the innate loneliness of the man of faith at the time he was writing this lengthy essay/short book. He sees Western society being taken over by first Adam, even to the degree of religious communities themselves falling under first Adam's domination. This reduction of second Adam is an aggravating historical contribution to the man of faith's loneliness, one which may or may not continue. This part of the discussion was of limited interest to myself during this read, at least.
While first Adam is content to exist in the natural work environment and able to communicate with another person as far as is needed there, second Adam must seek out a different kind of community in response to his ontological incompleteness. In this faith community it is not just two people participating, but us and He together, "the He in whom all being is rooted and in whom everything finds its rehabilitation and, consequently, redemption". Man and God meet as free partners in the covenantal relationship, alleviating our existential loneliness; and in joining together with others in the existential experience of being we also commune with our fellow man in a way that better meets the needs of second Adam.
He has a great helpful description of prayer in the context of Judaism, which might work as well for other liturgical religious traditions that use specific texts for prayer (and thus find themselves in danger of becoming rote):
Prayer is basically an awareness of man finding himself in the presence of and addressing himself to his Maker, and to pray has one connotation only: to stand before God. To be sure, this awareness has been objectified and crystallized in standardized, definitive texts whose recitation is obligatory. The total faith commitment tends always to transcend the frontiers of fleeting, amorphous subjectivity and to venture into the outside world of the well-formed, objective gesture. However, no matter how important this tendency on the part of the faith commitment is - and it is of enormous significance in the Halakah, which constantly demands from man that he translate his inner life into external facticity - it remains unalterably true that the very essence of prayer is the covenantal experience of being together with and talking to God, and that the concrete performance such as the recitation of texts represents the technique of implementation of prayer and not prayer itself. [footnote: Kavvanah (intention) related to prayer is, unlike the kavvanah concerning other mitzvah performances, not an extraneous addendum but the very core of prayer. The whole Halakhic controversy about kavvanah vis-a-vis other mitzvot has no relevance to prayer. There is not a single opinion that the latter can be divorced from kavvanah. Moreover, the substance of the kavvanah as far as prayer is concerned differs fundamentally from that which some require during the performance of other mitzvot. While the former denotes a state of mind, an all-embracing awareness of standing before the Almighty, the latter manifests itself only in the normative intention on the part of the mitzvah-doer to act in accordance with the will of God. Kavvanah in both cases of course expresses direction or aiming. However, in prayer one must direct his whole self toward God, whereas in the case of other mitzvot the directing is confined to a single act.]
From there the Rav continues on to describe what he sees as time-specific factors that contribute to the innate loneliness of the man of faith at the time he was writing this lengthy essay/short book. He sees Western society being taken over by first Adam, even to the degree of religious communities themselves falling under first Adam's domination. This reduction of second Adam is an aggravating historical contribution to the man of faith's loneliness, one which may or may not continue. This part of the discussion was of limited interest to myself during this read, at least.
January 16, 2019
Soloveitchik, in his book The Lonely Man Of Faith and following the yahwist; describing in detail 'Adam the first' and 'Adam the second', helpfully roots the existential crisis of meaning as a primary concern of The Scriptures. Similar to Rabbi Sacks in chronicling the story of man, the meaning-seeking animal, by the metaphor of the left and right parts of the brain and Kolakowski in cataloguing the technological and mythic cores, he focuses our attention on life's purpose and The call in its acute and uncompromising manner. The Rav includes this brief note on pages 39 and 40 of the short book as a powerful critique of the fake of faith: '*The Biblical account of the original sin is the story of man of faith who realizes suddenly that faith can be utilized for the acquisition of majesty and glory and who, instead of fostering a covenantal community, prefers to organize a political utilitarian community exploiting the sincerity and unqualified commitment of the crowd for non-covenantal, worldly purposes. The history of organized religion is replete with instances of desecration of the covenant.' Before continuing on page 40 about the real deal- ''THE COVENANTAL faith community, in contradistinction to the natural work community, interprets the divine pronouncement "It is not good for man to be alone," not in utilitarian but in ontological terms: it is not good for man to be lonely (not alone) with emphasis placed upon "to be." Being at the level of the faith community does not lend itself to any equation.
"To be" is not to be equated with "to work and produce goods" (as historical materialism wants us to believe). "To be" is not identical with "to think" (as the classical tradition of philosophical rationalism throughout the ages, culminating in Descartes and later in Kant, tried to convince us). "To be" does not exhaust itself either in suffering (as Schopenhauer preached) or in enjoying the world of sense (in accordance with ethical hedonism). "To be" is a unique in-depth experience of which only Adam the second is aware, and it is unrelated to any function or performance. "To be" means to be the only one, singular and different, and consequently lonely. For what causes man to be lonely and feel insecure if not the awareness of his uniqueness and exclusiveness? The "I" is lonely, experiencing ontological incompleteness and casualness, because there is no one who exists like the "I" and because the modus existentiae of the "I" cannot be
repeated, imitated, or experienced by others.
Since loneliness reflects the very core of the "I" experience and is not an accidental modus, no accidental activity or external achievement—such as belonging to a natural work community and achieving cooperative success—can reclaim Adam the second from this state. Therefore, I repeat, Adam the second must quest for a different kind of community. The companionship which Adam the second is seeking is not to be found in the depersonalized regimentation of the army, in the automatic coordination of the assembly line, or in the activity of the institutionalized, soulless political community. His quest is for a new kind of fellowship, which one finds in the existential community. There, not only hands are joined, but experiences as well; there, one hears not only the rhythmic sound of the production line, but also the rhythmic beat of hearts starved for existential companionship and all-embracing sympathy and experiencing the grandeur of the faith commitment; there, one lonely soul finds another soul tormented by loneliness and solitude yet unqualifiedly committed.''
Matthew 18:20- ''For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.”
This applies to The Church generally and to the covenant of Marriage, sometimes called the domestic church. This is Play at it's most profound, rooted in God's gratuitous act of creation in Love, and manifests itself in the radical adventurous otherness of the sexes most fully in Marriage; as Eric Fuchs evokes in his book, Sexual Desire and Love. The Rav helped me to understand Prayer enormously and critiqued certain elements of mysticism in light of the Prophetic-Prayerful colloquy with God. Marvellous.
"To be" is not to be equated with "to work and produce goods" (as historical materialism wants us to believe). "To be" is not identical with "to think" (as the classical tradition of philosophical rationalism throughout the ages, culminating in Descartes and later in Kant, tried to convince us). "To be" does not exhaust itself either in suffering (as Schopenhauer preached) or in enjoying the world of sense (in accordance with ethical hedonism). "To be" is a unique in-depth experience of which only Adam the second is aware, and it is unrelated to any function or performance. "To be" means to be the only one, singular and different, and consequently lonely. For what causes man to be lonely and feel insecure if not the awareness of his uniqueness and exclusiveness? The "I" is lonely, experiencing ontological incompleteness and casualness, because there is no one who exists like the "I" and because the modus existentiae of the "I" cannot be
repeated, imitated, or experienced by others.
Since loneliness reflects the very core of the "I" experience and is not an accidental modus, no accidental activity or external achievement—such as belonging to a natural work community and achieving cooperative success—can reclaim Adam the second from this state. Therefore, I repeat, Adam the second must quest for a different kind of community. The companionship which Adam the second is seeking is not to be found in the depersonalized regimentation of the army, in the automatic coordination of the assembly line, or in the activity of the institutionalized, soulless political community. His quest is for a new kind of fellowship, which one finds in the existential community. There, not only hands are joined, but experiences as well; there, one hears not only the rhythmic sound of the production line, but also the rhythmic beat of hearts starved for existential companionship and all-embracing sympathy and experiencing the grandeur of the faith commitment; there, one lonely soul finds another soul tormented by loneliness and solitude yet unqualifiedly committed.''
Matthew 18:20- ''For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.”
This applies to The Church generally and to the covenant of Marriage, sometimes called the domestic church. This is Play at it's most profound, rooted in God's gratuitous act of creation in Love, and manifests itself in the radical adventurous otherness of the sexes most fully in Marriage; as Eric Fuchs evokes in his book, Sexual Desire and Love. The Rav helped me to understand Prayer enormously and critiqued certain elements of mysticism in light of the Prophetic-Prayerful colloquy with God. Marvellous.
Read
August 7, 2023"The Lonely Man of Faith" by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is a profound exploration of the existential struggles faced by individuals of faith in a world dominated by utilitarianism, self-centeredness, and egoism. Originally published as an essay in 1965 and later reissued by Three Leaf Press, a subsidiary of Doubleday, this work delves into the dichotomy between the two accounts of the creation of man in the Book of Genesis and offers a comprehensive examination of the human experience within the context of faith.
Upon the passing of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in 1993, the Jewish community mourned the loss of a prominent Jewish philosopher and Talmudic scholar. Known affectionately as the "Rov," Rabbi Soloveitchik's impact on mainstream Orthodox Judaism remains unparalleled. His seminal work, "Halachic Man," and other philosophical works, such as "The Lonely Man of Faith," showcase his theological worldview and intellectual depth.
In "The Lonely Man of Faith," Rabbi Soloveitchik begins by drawing from diverse sources, including Western philosophy, Scriptural references, and classic rabbinic exegesis, to elucidate the existential loneliness faced by people of faith in a world driven by materialism and self-centeredness. The central premise of the book revolves around the apparent discrepancy between the two accounts of Adam's creation in Genesis. Adam I, created in the image of God, seeks dignity through control over his environment and creative endeavors within a faithful community. Adam II, on the other hand, seeks to understand the metaphysical nature of being and searches for God in the natural world.
Rabbi Soloveitchik masterfully weaves together these disparate elements to illustrate the inner conflict of the "lonely man of faith." Adam II's yearning for direct knowledge of the Creator places him in a state of existential aloneness, as he seeks personal redemption through a unique, non-communal journey. Despite being part of a covenantal community, Adam II's true dwelling is the realm of solitude, a place where his faith and yearning for divine connection reside.
Rabbi Soloveitchik's exploration of this duality and the intricate interplay between Adam I and Adam II creates a tapestry of emotions ranging from anguish to joy. Through profound insights and scholarly analysis, the book achieves its goal of highlighting the intricate human experience within faith. The Rov's assertion that prayer serves as a shelter for Adam II emphasizes the importance of spiritual connection in navigating the challenges of being a person of faith in a secular world.
"The Lonely Man of Faith" remains a timeless masterpiece of contemporary thought. It delves into the individual's struggles, hopes, needs, and moments of both joy and sadness within the context of faith. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's ability to synthesize theology, philosophy, and existential reflection makes this book an essential read for anyone seeking to understand the complex interplay between faith and the modern world. Through this work, Rabbi Soloveitchik leaves an enduring legacy that continues to guide and inspire individuals in their spiritual journeys.
Upon the passing of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in 1993, the Jewish community mourned the loss of a prominent Jewish philosopher and Talmudic scholar. Known affectionately as the "Rov," Rabbi Soloveitchik's impact on mainstream Orthodox Judaism remains unparalleled. His seminal work, "Halachic Man," and other philosophical works, such as "The Lonely Man of Faith," showcase his theological worldview and intellectual depth.
In "The Lonely Man of Faith," Rabbi Soloveitchik begins by drawing from diverse sources, including Western philosophy, Scriptural references, and classic rabbinic exegesis, to elucidate the existential loneliness faced by people of faith in a world driven by materialism and self-centeredness. The central premise of the book revolves around the apparent discrepancy between the two accounts of Adam's creation in Genesis. Adam I, created in the image of God, seeks dignity through control over his environment and creative endeavors within a faithful community. Adam II, on the other hand, seeks to understand the metaphysical nature of being and searches for God in the natural world.
Rabbi Soloveitchik masterfully weaves together these disparate elements to illustrate the inner conflict of the "lonely man of faith." Adam II's yearning for direct knowledge of the Creator places him in a state of existential aloneness, as he seeks personal redemption through a unique, non-communal journey. Despite being part of a covenantal community, Adam II's true dwelling is the realm of solitude, a place where his faith and yearning for divine connection reside.
Rabbi Soloveitchik's exploration of this duality and the intricate interplay between Adam I and Adam II creates a tapestry of emotions ranging from anguish to joy. Through profound insights and scholarly analysis, the book achieves its goal of highlighting the intricate human experience within faith. The Rov's assertion that prayer serves as a shelter for Adam II emphasizes the importance of spiritual connection in navigating the challenges of being a person of faith in a secular world.
"The Lonely Man of Faith" remains a timeless masterpiece of contemporary thought. It delves into the individual's struggles, hopes, needs, and moments of both joy and sadness within the context of faith. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's ability to synthesize theology, philosophy, and existential reflection makes this book an essential read for anyone seeking to understand the complex interplay between faith and the modern world. Through this work, Rabbi Soloveitchik leaves an enduring legacy that continues to guide and inspire individuals in their spiritual journeys.
December 18, 2016
I became interested in Soloveitchik's concept of Adam I and Adam II when it was used as a major theme in David Brooks' The Road to Character (my favorite book of the past few years). I've found the theory invaluable and even life-changing: a concrete Adam I (Brooks' man of "resumé virtues") and Adam II (Brooks' man of "eulogy virtues", and Soloveitchik's lonely man of faith) have been essential in helping me bring into focus my own internal duality and struggle, and allowed me to define how I hope those natures interact in myself.
The two Adams come from competing biblical narratives found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Adam I is creative, technical, efficient, and victorious. While he's part of a community, its members are means to his creative ends. His ambition knows no bounds and he lives in accordance with God's mandate to subdue and have dominion over the earth. The mysteries of existence are an interest to him as a scientific problem to be solved, a "how" question with a finite answer.
Adam II, in contrast, is introspective, wondering, self-sacrificing, intellectually qualitative, humble, and seeking redemption. The "why" of existence matters to him much more than the "how." He experiences an existential and perpetual loneliness as he seeks holiness in a world increasingly driven forward and defined by Adam I and his successes. In his loneliness, he seeks a community whose members are bound to one another by sacrifice for one another and for God.
The conversation between the two stops short when Adam II encounters the impossibility of translating the spiritual and sacrificial experience into technical terms—a language barrier that makes the values dilemma between the two insoluble.
While Soloveitchik favors Adam II but seems to allow two to uncomfortably co-exist into perpetuity, Brooks more aggressively advocates for Adam II. Brooks' person of character is one who's forged a life based on endless small victories of humility over pride, sacrifice over self, restraint over desire, and holiness over happiness. I find myself in complete agreement with, inspired by, and wholly lacking in this ideal.
Soloveitchik's book is short (an essay, really), and takes faith in God as a given (though there's no religious requirement beyond that). Brooks has no faith requirement, but makes explicit his belief that religion has a strong moral vocabulary worth using even in questions of non-faith-based morality. I'd strongly recommend both books for anyone interested in exploring the building of character in the face of competing natures.
The two Adams come from competing biblical narratives found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Adam I is creative, technical, efficient, and victorious. While he's part of a community, its members are means to his creative ends. His ambition knows no bounds and he lives in accordance with God's mandate to subdue and have dominion over the earth. The mysteries of existence are an interest to him as a scientific problem to be solved, a "how" question with a finite answer.
Adam II, in contrast, is introspective, wondering, self-sacrificing, intellectually qualitative, humble, and seeking redemption. The "why" of existence matters to him much more than the "how." He experiences an existential and perpetual loneliness as he seeks holiness in a world increasingly driven forward and defined by Adam I and his successes. In his loneliness, he seeks a community whose members are bound to one another by sacrifice for one another and for God.
The conversation between the two stops short when Adam II encounters the impossibility of translating the spiritual and sacrificial experience into technical terms—a language barrier that makes the values dilemma between the two insoluble.
While Soloveitchik favors Adam II but seems to allow two to uncomfortably co-exist into perpetuity, Brooks more aggressively advocates for Adam II. Brooks' person of character is one who's forged a life based on endless small victories of humility over pride, sacrifice over self, restraint over desire, and holiness over happiness. I find myself in complete agreement with, inspired by, and wholly lacking in this ideal.
Soloveitchik's book is short (an essay, really), and takes faith in God as a given (though there's no religious requirement beyond that). Brooks has no faith requirement, but makes explicit his belief that religion has a strong moral vocabulary worth using even in questions of non-faith-based morality. I'd strongly recommend both books for anyone interested in exploring the building of character in the face of competing natures.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews